Climate and Weather

espoola said:
The "little ice age", wasnt really an ice age at all, but it was a cool period that ended in the 1880s.
If that starting point is cooler than normal, and today is warmer than normal, how much fluctuation are we talking about?
If we need to save the planet, we need to understand how hot weve boiled it so far, professor.
Click to expand...

Why's you switch out Gilligan? Since the baseline is a running average, what's above it and below it will change. So what's minus and what's plus in your subsequent post only tells you which way the baseline is trending. But you're right that the absolute amplitude between the high and low points over a time period is indeed a fixed fluctuation value that you can look at. The magnitude of metemperature change has certainly been larger over earth history. But the rate of change right now is what draws attention. Fastest rate of change over the entire Holocene according to the models and proxies. JMO we'll ride out whatever may or may not be in store and muddle along. It's what we do. But if we keep talking like this Iz is going to come charging in here with alarm this and alarm that like there's a herd of badgers digging up his kalo patch and trying to scratch their way into his chicken coop. So we need to find a way to cast a long cold eye. If you're the type to mull over a good paper, consider the last stand of the ichthyosaurs about a 100 million years ago. You can read all about it here, and its a freebie (PMC link upper right).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26953824

Increasingly genetically bottlenecked, climate changing faster than they could adapt, what's a lizard-like fish to do? Old Charlie stole the handle and the train it won't stop going no way to slow down.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Why's you switch out Gilligan? Since the baseline is a running average, what's above it and below it will change. So what's minus and what's plus in your subsequent post only tells you which way the baseline is trending. But you're right that the absolute amplitude between the high and low points over a time period is indeed a fixed fluctuation value that you can look at. The magnitude of metemperature change has certainly been larger over earth history. But the rate of change right now is what draws attention. Fastest rate of change over the entire Holocene according to the models and proxies. JMO we'll ride out whatever may or may not be in store and muddle along. It's what we do. But if we keep talking like this Iz is going to come charging in here with alarm this and alarm that like there's a herd of badgers digging up his kalo patch and trying to scratch their way into his chicken coop. So we need to find a way to cast a long cold eye. If you're the type to mull over a good paper, consider the last stand of the ichthyosaurs about a 100 million years ago. You can read all about it here, and its a freebie (PMC link upper right).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26953824

Increasingly genetically bottlenecked, climate changing faster than they could adapt, what's a lizard-like fish to do? Old Charlie stole the handle and the train it won't stop going no way to slow down.
Click to expand...
The Ichthyosaur was not a lizard fish, but who cares. It went the way of the pleasiosaur, and other extinct denizens of the sea. Our planet chews em up and spits em out.
True reptiles like the crocodile survived.
The horseshoe crab is probably the world champ outside the insect kingdom. (one could argue, crabs are just big bugs)
Point is, co2 is a bit player in the overall picture, and anthropogenic co2 is a prop somewhere on the set, but not on the main scientific stage.
Anthropogenic co2 does, however, take top billing in the political science category.
 
What makes the "arguments" against ACC even dumber, is it doesn't even matter if mankind is responsible for the warming trend we're seeing. Many of policy proposals make sense even if it's just natural change in the Climate. The deniers are fighting against the best interests of mankind regardless.
 
espoola said:
Point is, co2 is a bit player in the overall picture, and anthropogenic co2 is a prop somewhere on the set, but not on the main scientific stage.
Anthropogenic co2 does, however, take top billing in the political science category.
Click to expand...

What University did you get your PhD from?
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
But if we keep talking like this Iz is going to come charging in here with alarm this and alarm that like there's a herd of badgers digging up his kalo patch and trying to scratch their way into his chicken coop.
Click to expand...

I had no idea this soccer forum attracted so many Earth Science experts who think their interpretation of scientific data is king...
 
Wez said:
I'm not claiming Scientific knowledge. Unlike the right, that prefers notions that feel right, I prefer to listen to what experts have to say.
Click to expand...
Feels right?
What are you talking about?
You mean like eliminating valedictorians, and keeping score, and participation trophies for all?
Or paying someone $15.00 to ask if you want fries with that order?
You mean like that?
What exactly do you mean?

Tell us Wez, what are going to do today to stop climate change?
Will you eliminate fossil fuel use today?
Will sell your automobile today and ride a bike.
Will you stop eating meat, as live stock are considered large producers of co2 "and in fact accounts for at least half of all human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs), according to Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change" in the latest issue of World Watch magazine." http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6297

What are you gonna do to stop climate change?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top